Dank, what are your thoughts on pirate? Do you think it's a ponzi?

How's the wife?

Agreed wholeheartedly. Unless we design a decentralized government, decentralized properties (seasteads?), etc, taxes are here to stay, they're just going to have to work harder to find out how much you really owe just like they had to find out a new way of measuring things each time technology has improved at anytime in our human history.

I don't know about ponies, but speaking of stable, have you seen this stable increase of bets in this thread? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751

I don't trust bitcoin, but it works without my trust.

I lean towards this as well, although I would be wary of using other people's terms for agreements since it might not have covered enough bases on either side.

I've just been informed that there was over 500,000BTC loaned to Pirate, and that he has held or does hold (not sure which) $5,000,000USD at current market rate.


The bet is that he is not a fraud. Being late on a payment doesn't make him a fraud. Paying back 50% would. My clarification is that investors might tell him "Hey, we don't want to want, give us 90% now". That obviously doesn't count as a default because it is a private agreement and I cannot possibly know what they agree on anyway. All I know is that if the investors report back that he broke their contracts, I lose. If he says "I'm only gonna pay you 90%", and they agree under duress, that's scamming. If they negotiate however and agree (emotionlessly) that that's what they want given some circumstances I couldn't possibly know right now, why would that count as defaulting? It's really none of my business.

Title changed to: "I'm giving 100%(x2) away to anyone who thinks pirate is a fraud".

I think that explains enough for both sides.

Under normal circumstances, that would be true, however given the large amount of money we're talking about that he has collected, it would be quite impossible for him to pay out his rates and still be considered a ponzi. Anyway, this is not a discussion thread for more people to share "opinions". There are plenty of those elsewhere. This is a thread for wolf cryers to pay the tax for spamming their baseless accusations, and Pirate is still the only one who can prove you wrong.

On that note, if you're positive he is a ponzi, you'd be silly not to make some easy money off of me by betting. If you're neutral on it, good for you. That's where you should be.

Sorry, I'm really not used to this. What should the title be?

Yes, but only if you go through someone else, because I cannot change the rules mid-game like this or I'd never hear the end of it. I should have thought of a better method in the beginning. My bad.

??

His offer is that he will let you send bitcoins through him as a passthru and he keeps 50% of the winnings if the person wins.
I think el_rlee is just looking for someone to do what psy is offering, but looking to pay 10% not 50%. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding it, psy's offer is -worse- than el_rlee's proposed offer.

Good idea.

Does anyone else have any resources for Pirate threads (there are so many of them now it's kind of difficult) that would show who he has to pay back and what the current terms are?

Also ThomasV, you're an established user. You might want to take el_rlee's offer and let him send you 50BTC to wager with on his behalf. You have nothing to lose regardless.

It's interesting to see that even in this bet, which is supposed to be making a point against -over- speculation, I've already been accused of at least 3 things, none of which are true. I'm just sitting here, completely uninvested in Pirate or any passthru, willing to take a personal risk on money in order to impose a tax on the people who wish to clutter the forums with emotional wolf crying. Nothing more, nothing less.

I can definitely agree to that. Quote this please.

At this point, due to the OP, even if I accepted your bet, I could later argue that it wasn't a "real bet" because the rules strictly stated that you weren't eligible. Better than making some modification to the rules this far into the thread, it'd be safer if you just have a 100+ post trusted user bet on your behalf. I will hold off making any recommendations though because it seems it would be a conflict of interest.


Interesting theory. Wasn't it proposed that PIrate had like 500,000BTC or some ridiculous number like that? How would this measly betting thread even make a dent then?

You give me too much credit. I have nothing invested in Pirate. If I lose this bet, I simply lose. You only live once though, right?

This is difficult to clarify, but I'll do my best in good faith:

If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.


I'm trying my best to be smart about my clarifications, but if you need any more clarification, please ask and give examples so I can better explain. This is all on good faith of course, I don't want to get into legal arguments "But you said if he paid back on 12oclock and that was EST not KST" and other bullshit. This is about whether he is a scammer/ponzi or not, not about whether you can cheat the system for a cheap profit.